Quote.... 'Hmm, that's the period that the deniers say global warming has stopped.' (I thought the subject had been sneakily altered to Climate Change now,)

Please stop misrepresenting what is actually being claimed by those you sneeringly refer to as deniers. (Or idiots as global warming disciples like to call us.) The East Anglian Climate Research centre, (by NO means deniers) along with other authorities on climate change has conceeded that there has been no significant warming over the last 15 years.

You appear to be claiming that they are wrong, in that sea lavel has continued to rise (NOT disputed by us 'deniers') therefore temperature must also have done so. Once again, really!

If you are going to accuse us deniers please be clear as to WHAT we are denying. After all, we, in our island, are well used to sea level changes. The East coast of Yorkshire has seen steady encroachment from the sea for centuries. (A village from king Henry days now lies one and a half miles out under the North sea.) Yet other parts of our island sport raised beaches at a considerable height. (I expect the crabs got a bit p....d off waiting for the tide to come in, and waddled their way back down cursing loudly.)

Yes, I know, isostatic adjustments, but the logical point is that if sea level globally has gone on rising during the conceeded (by climate change authorities) period of 'pause' in warming, it may actually be a little more complicated than simple cause and effect. (And some of us believe that applies to atmospheric CO2 and temperatures also.)

At anyrate, insults (deniers are idiots) and arm twisting (the consensus by all right minded people) can always subdue those with careers to carve, and lock out any serious questioning by them. Perhaps that is what has turned many of us against the current air of absolute certainty of infallibility.

At anyrate, insults (deniers are idiots) and arm twisting (the consensus by all right minded people) can always subdue those with careers to carve, and lock out any serious questioning by them. Perhaps that is what has turned many of us against the current air of absolute certainty of infallibility.

GT--I didn't author the article I cited, and the meat was later. The tone is what it is--but so is the substance. You also don't need to take on the mantle of a denier--you seem to be a reasonable skeptic, which is very different.

One denier here has, without reservation, belittled peer review and claimed that warming has stopped. The point of the first article is to show, with actual data, that warming has continued in the oceans during the period of time where the deniers claim that the flattening of the terrestrial curve means that warming has stopped. I have responded that a 15 year "flattening" in a chaotic curve means little, given the error bands we know. But this is, I believe, compelling and peer reviewed (that is, non-propaganda) information that heat is still gathering in the oceans, which account for nearly all of the thermal mass on earth. Indeed, global warming is continuing says the data.

The second citation shows not a continuation of sea level rise, which I've studied for decades, but a dramatic increase in the pace of sea level rise. Again, during the period of time when those who cherry-pick information claim that climate change has stopped. If you look at that link, you will see the accumulation of compelling metrics that show climate change is occurring--rising temperatures, shrinking mass of ice on land and sea, and an acceleration in sea level rise. One needs to look at the entire body of information, not cherry-pick one little piece--and avoid discussing rest--to be credible in a scientific milieu.

I am still waiting for a reasonable countervailing view that is based on science not talking points, and doesn't use outrage about tone to avoid the issue. After all, that is what science is about. And it is not surprising that climate change scientists, having been attacked by the minions of the carbon industry for several decades now with false statements, have gotten a bit testy.

This is an excellent and clear explanation of why the canard that global warming stopped 15 years ago is cherry-picking and dishonest. You'll have to click on the links to see the graphs--and I know that some, those who live in the Central Coast and already know everything they need to know about how "far leftists" think, won't actually trouble themselves with facts. Nor, perhaps, will those who steered Big Oil money to the foundations who spread these lies, but for the rest:

Quote:

By James Temple

July 21, 2013

In 1998, the global mean temperature was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 2012, it was 58.2 degrees.

As ridiculous as it sounds, that simplistic analysis is the basis for one of the most frequently cited critiques of climate science. Indeed, any time I write about global warming, an e-mail arguing that the globe hasn't heated in 15 years reliably lands in my in-box.

Those readers are probably taking their talking points from the many professional climate deniers who repeat this inaccuracy as often as possible, including in opinion pieces in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal.

"Warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO{-2} emissions have soared over this period," wrote Peter Ferrara, a director at the Heartland Institute, in a representative Forbes.com piece.

This conclusion isn't at all surprising from a conservative think tank that routinely goes to great lengths to sow doubts about the science of global warming in the public mind. The problem is that arriving at it requires ignoring everything but the two dots on a chart that, in isolation, seem to make their case.

The 1998 gambit

Let's start by looking at the data in question:

It becomes immediately obvious that this is a classic case of manipulating statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion, specifically by cherry-picking the start date. That red line that deniers are relying on doesn't actually conform to the shape of that chart.

If you want to know whether a climate change denier is attempting to mislead you, the first clue is the use of the year 1998. It was one of the hottest years on record thanks to an unusually strong El Niņo.

"The 1998 spike caused by an extraordinary El Niņo event has been statistically abused for a long time," said Reto Ruedy, a research associate at NASA, in an e-mail. "What appeared to be an extraordinary global temperature anomaly 15 years ago is now an expected occurrence and has been - within the margin of error - equaled 8 times since then."

In fact, he pointed out, the margin for error in these numbers is about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, so there's actually no statistical difference between the years 1998 and 2012

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum